Like most people who enjoy a good show, I have been following the California
recall election attentively. No interest in politics is required. One of
the front-runners is action-film superstar Arnold Schwarzenegger, who declared
his candidacy on "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno and can currently
be seen in a theater near you. Some of the other candidates read like a list
of TV "where are they now" documentaries: "Diff'rnt Strokes" child
star Gary Coleman, Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt and the watermelon-smashing
comedian Gallagher.

Porn film actress Mary Carey poses for a portrait at her campaign headquarters
near downtown Los Angeles on August 11

One of the minor celebrities running is the buxom "adult film" actress
Mary Carey. Thinking that her reported proposal to recruit pornographic movie
stars to lure businesses into the state couldn't possibly be for real, I
paid a visit to her campaign website. It was not a work-safe click. A topless
Carey was shown gleefully jumping up and down on the main page, bouncing
her ample bosoms. This has since been replaced with a more, shall we say,
restrained picture of her clad in a red, white and blue bikini.

This circus-like atmosphere is one of the reasons conservatives have been
deeply conflicted about the whole recall process. They despise California
Gov. Gray Davis and there is much to dislike. In his almost pathological
efforts to curry favor with public employee unions, he is spending the state
into bankruptcy. From illegal immigration to the energy crisis, his solutions
are uniformly politically correct, command-and-control, efforts that rely
on taxes, regulations and subsidies.

Yet there was nothing wrong with Davis that wasn't readily apparent when
California voters narrowly decided to reelect him months ago in the 2002
gubernatorial election. His opponent, Republican businessman Bill Simon,
now running for the job again in the recall election, was a far from ideal
candidate but he did offer a contrasting vision and a clean break from Davis'
policies. The voters chose not to seize this opportunity and, some would
say, ought to now be stuck with the consequences.

Then there is the matter of what will happen if this blunt recall tool is
turned against Republican officeholders. We may find that once this genie
is out of the bottle, it becomes nearly impossible to contain. Escalating
competing recalls would upset California's political stability without necessarily
transforming policy in a salutary direction. Conservatives do not even agree
whether Schwarzenegger would represent much progress on the policy front.

This is why Jonah Goldberg of National Review On-Line and Christopher Ruddy
of Newsmax.com both came out against the recall in columns before it made
the ballot, and veteran syndicated columnist George Will is still urging
conservatives to oppose it. Conservatives have long been suspicious of direct
democracy, viewing it as a threat to the individual liberties and enumerated
government powers enshrined in our republic's constitutional framework. We
are a republic, not a democracy. Our leaders may be chosen by democratic
means, but our liberties and our constitutional rights should never be subject
to the whims of majority opinion. Direct democratic tools like the recall
are a legacy of the Progressives, the ideological ancestors of today's liberals.

But perhaps constitutionalists can find a way to turn this progressive instrument
for growing government around to suit their own objectives. Davis is being
recalled due to the magnitude of his inability to manage state finances and
alleged dishonesty during the election season about the extent of the fiscal
problems. This, the argument goes, is a breach of his obligations as governor.
What if other obligations, such as abiding by the Constitution, could be
enforced by the threat of recall?

Constitutionalists should put legislators, executives and wherever applicable
judges on notice that a failure to live up to the oath they swear to the
Constitution will result in efforts to recall them. They must be prepared
to defend their actions in office with a rationale coherently rooted in the
text and logic of the U.S. Constitution and any applicable state constitution.

If a congressman votes to grow government beyond its constitutional limits,
constitutionalists should initiate a recall. If a governor exceeds the constitutional
powers of his office, he should be recalled. If a judge is more interested
in her personal legislative agenda than in following the Constitution, she
should be recalled.

There are some rather obvious limits to this proposal. Not all states have
the recall option and not all officeholders can be recalled. For example,
only 17 states allow voters to recall their governors. So this couldn't possibly
be a national strategy.

It's also the case that many Americans, whether they know it or not, favor
unconstitutional government. Efforts to recall politicians for advocating
policies a majority are likely to go no further than constitutional conservatives'
proposals to impeach Earl Warren in the 1950s and '60s.

But this could be an instructive educational effort even if it will not
always be a successful political effort, and anything that educates Americans
about the Constitution is a good thing. In particular, the general public
needs to be reminded of enumerated powers, the doctrine that the Constitution
specifies and thus limits federal authority. The very fact of this discussion
may bring some voters and officeholders back in line with our founding principles.

It might be a pipe dream, but constitutionalists need to start thinking
outside the box a little bit. To fully restore the Constitution, we need
to find new ways to insure that it actively limits government again. This
calls for binding the political class in constitutional chains once again.
If we need to use a Progressive tool like the recall to realize this goal,
then so be it.